Karnataka High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd Riico ... vs Nagraj S/O Gurunath Hugar on 4 December, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
MFA No.201675/2015 (MV)
Between:
Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapur Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Through its Manager
... Appellant
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate)
And:
1. Nagaraj S/o Gurunath Hugar,
Age 27 years,
Occ. Govt. Servant
in KEB Indi,
R/o Khanapur (SK),
Tq. Shorapur,
Dist. Yadgir - 585 202.
2
2. Mallappa S/o Samaaraya Lonni,
R/o Kengani, Tq. Indi,
Dist. Vijaypur - 586 101.
... Respondents
(By Sri G.B.Yadav, Advocate for R1
Sri S.S.Mamadapur, Advocate for R2)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow the
appeal by setting aside the judgment and award dated
29.10.2014, in M.V.C.No.08/2011 passed by the Senior
Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Shorapur.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
RATHNAKALA J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Insurer is in appeal challenging the liability fastened by the Addl. MACT, Shorapur (for brevity 'the Tribunal') to pay the compensation amount awarded in a claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation in respect of grievous injuries suffered by him in a vehicular 3 accident dated 06.02.2010, involving Tom-Tom Auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-28-A-8572 (insured by the appellant). His case was, he suffered fracture of right thigh and fracture of middle soft of right femur and all over the body. He was treated in the private hospital and finally his right leg blow knee was amputated and a rod was inserted in the right thigh.
3. The Insurer contested the claim. The Tribunal on over all consideration of the material, allowed the petition and awarded compensation as below and directed the insurer to satisfy the award:-
Sl.No. Heads Compensation
1. Towards Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,00,000/-
comforts
3. Towards medical expenses Rs.35,000/-
4. Towards artificial leg Rs.99,000/-
5. Towards attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
during the period of treatment
from 06.02.2010 to
03.03.2010
6. Towards food and Rs.10,000/-
nourishment
7. Towards conveyance charges Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.4,69,000/-
4
4. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a question of law in this appeal that the driver of the offending vehicle Tom-Tom Auto rickshaw baring Reg.No.KA-28-A-8572 did not have transport endorsement on his driving licence and therefore it is a clear breach of contract by the owner of the vehicle in handing over the vehicle to the driver who did not possess valid driving licence.
5. The above legal contention raised by the Insurer is set at rest by the Apex Court in the reference case reported in AIR 2017 SC (Civil) 2531 in the matter of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, whereby the questions of law referred for adjudication was;
1. What is the meaning to be given to the definition of "light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the M.V.Act? Whether transport vehicles are excluded from it?
52. Whether 'transport vehicle' and 'omni-
bus'; the "gross vehicle weight" of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a "light motor vehicle" and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) would be competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the "gross vehicle weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. Or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kgs.?
3. What is the effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting Clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "heavy goods vehicle" and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" by "transport vehicle"? Whether insertion of expression 'transport vehicle' Under Section 10(2)(e) is related to said 6 substituted classes only or it also excluded transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Sections 10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act?
4. What is the effect of Amendment of Form 4 as to the operation of the provisions contained in Section 10 as amended in the year 1994 and whether the procedure to obtain the driving licence for transport vehicle of the class of "Light Motor Vehicle" has been changed?"
And the Apex Court on a detailed discussion recorded its findings :
"46(I) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.7
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle"
in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle 8 in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
6. In view of the above, it is not mandatory for a driver having driving licence (non transport) to have a transport endorsement for the purpose of driving light 9 Transport vehicle. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant/Insurer. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Registry to transmit the lower Court records and the amount deposited by the Insurance Company to the concerned Tribunal.
The appellant - insurer shall deposit the balance compensation amount with the accrued interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sn/SMP